News
Solving the Tesla Semi truck conundrum: here’s what it might take
With the release of Tesla’s updated vision for the future, CEO Elon Musk included plenty of information that was both intriguing and light on details. From that, we will try to make a guess as to what Tesla’s plans are in reference to trucks and shed light on the many obstacles that the company will need to overcome before making its plans a reality.
The light details of Musk’s announcement is par for the course from Tesla and Co, which operates its marketing as much on hype and viral sharing as anything else. This is not a knock against the company, as most other firms would sacrifice virgins every Friday to see the same kind of unsolicited viral marketing that Tesla generates. One thing Elon has mastered is walking the fine line between being informative and forthcoming and being vague enough to cause rampant speculation.
In the company’s “Part Deux” plans for the future, a brief and almost passing mention of semi-trucks was made as a part of Tesla’s developments. Specifically, Must referred to “heavy-duty trucks” and called the idea a “Tesla Semi.” This can imply two things, but probably implies both. It could imply that Tesla plans to make a heavy-duty truck – which could mean a three-quarter ton pickup truck, a Class B heavy truck, or a large Class A freight-hauling truck. Or it can imply that Tesla plans to make a semi-truck only (aka “18 wheeler”). We believe it’s likely that they plan to do all of the above.
Currently, about 70 percent of the freight being moved around the United States is moved on semi-trucks in which a large tractor is attached to a separate trailer. These trucks typically operate at weights up to 80,000 pounds in vehicle, freight, and fuel. They are referred to as “Class A” trucks because the weight class requires an operator’s license of that type. Yet that is only one class of truck. And the typical over-the-road (OTR) truck we usually think of when talking about semi-trucks are just one slice of a large trucking pie.
Nearly 12,000 million tons of freight are hauled by trucks every year in the United States. A significant portion of that hauling is done by smaller trucks rather than large semi-trucks. Package carrying (van) trucks, dump trucks, refuse (garbage) trucks, and other specialized trucks are also common and actually make up a larger portion of the miles driven by heavy-duty trucking. Most of these vehicles have a gross weight of 26,000 pounds or more, by definition, so for our purposes here we will be excluding passenger-style heavy-duty pickups and the like. We are assuming that Musk is referring to freight hauling, given his statements.
With the plan to “cover the major forms of terrestrial transport” that Tesla put forth, we can assume that the company plans to design and potentially build heavy-duty trucks of all stripes. This is realistic given that major truck builders such as Paccar (Kenworth, Peterbilt), Volvo, Mack, etc. already do this. One basic design can be modified to match several needs, thus a single model Mack truck can be both an OTR freight puller and a dump truck with just a few changes to the drivetrain and chassis. Medium-duty trucks, such as package delivery (ala UPS, FedEx) box trucks can also be of a single design with multiple body options. Although the reality is a bit more complicated than this, the gist is that it is possible to design only a couple of vehicles and have them workable in most major truck markets. Knowing this, we will concentrate on the most difficult to achieve, over-the-road heavy-duty semi-trucks.
Knowing that, there are obstacles to overcome. The challenges of a Tesla pickup truck are a beginning, but with a heavy freight hauler, they become exponential. Here are some basic requirements for the biggest of these HD trucks:
- Power output similar to a large diesel engine, equalling roughly 450-550 horsepower and 800-1,200 pound-feet of torque. The amount of output depends heavily on the work to be done. A typical OTR truck, for example, falls in the lower end of this spectrum to maximize fuel efficiency while a typical off-road construction or heavy-load truck (logging and the like) will be at the higher end.
- An operating range of 600 miles per charge for OTR and about half that for more local use (construction, large trailer/freight delivery). Smaller trucks doing package deliveries could operate in the 150-mile range easily.
- The capability to haul as much or more freight than the current diesel-powered offerings do.
That last point is important. Getting a 600-mile range for a truck that can weigh up to 80,000 pounds, freight included, is pretty simple. Getting a 600-mile range for a truck and trailer weighing under 35,000 pounds is not as easy. It’s the old problem of more batteries equals more range, but also equals more weight.
There have been and are current attempts at electrifying semi-trucks, of course. Mostly in the medium-duty package delivery and trailer moving (non-transport) sectors. Solutions involving hydrogen fuel cells, battery-electrics, hydraulic hybrids, and more have been produced. Some did not do well (see Smith Transport) and some are going places (see Parker-Hannifin’s hydraulic hybrids). For the most part, battery-electric over-the-road trucks are seen as a pipe dream by most in the industry. There are good reasons for this. Not the least of which are the battery weight and range expectations of the trucks. Nevermind the likely long charging times required.
Walmart’s WAVE concept truck features an electric powertrain and lightweight carbon fiber trailer
Without getting too detailed, most OTR drivers expect to put in 600 or more miles per day in a solo run (one driver) and about 1,000 or so when team driving. Most fuel stops are 15-20 minutes and most trucks have a range of 700-1,000 miles when fitted with dual tanks (one on either side). Having enough lithium-ion batteries on board to do that is daunting. Especially given the high power outputs required to move 80,000 pounds worth of rig and freight.
There are solutions for this, of course. Since Musk devoted so much of his announcement to autonomous driving, we can assume the plan is to include that with trucking. Three possible ideas are:
Relaying. A truck takes a trailer 300-400 miles, swaps it with a trailer going back where it came from, and returns. The trailer swapped continues on with on another truck for another 300-400 miles, then another, and another.. Until its final destination and delivery. This is currently done with certain types of freight and these trucks often have shorter trailers and run them as doubles (one attached to another). Automating this might be a solution. At least for some types of freight.
Battery swapping. The truck drives for a certain range of miles, stops somewhere to have its emptied battery swapped with a full one, and continues. If done in 10-15 minutes and not more than twice a day, this would be realistic under the current trucking paradigm with a driver on board. When automated, the swaps could be as often as you’d like, though each stop means delays in shipment.
Partial electrification. This would be a truck which runs on electricity but has an on-board combustion generator. This is a potential solution, but is not likely to be on Tesla’s agenda.
Another option that should be considered, though it might not be what Tesla fans will want to hear: Musk may be planning on taking a standard semi-truck and automating it. In other words, the Tesla Semi could actually be an automation system, not an actual truck. At least in the beginning. Given the huge amount of technical obstacles, some of which may not be surmountable without combustion, this is a viable guess. At least for OTR trucks.
Any of these ideas or a combination are realistic for a Tesla Semi strategy in regards to OTR trucks. There are no shortage of plans (grandiose and otherwise) for transforming the trucking industry via electrification. Seeing Teslas will at least be interesting.
News
FCC green lights SpaceX’s move to a showdown with Verizon and AT&T
The FCC advanced plans opening 482 MHz to satellite phone service, boosting SpaceX’s Starlink Mobile.
The Federal Communications Commission voted Thursday to move forward with a proposal that would open an additional 482 MHz of spectrum to satellite service beamed directly to ordinary phones, a step that could widen the road for SpaceX’s Starlink Mobile to compete with the country’s largest wireless carriers.
The commission adopted the notice of proposed rulemaking at its October open meeting in Washington, Reuters reported. The proposal would raise the number of bands eligible for Supplemental Coverage from Space from five to 13, according to the FCC fact sheet. Commissioners also advanced a companion item proposing an auction of 25 MHz in the 1675 to 1695 MHz and 2020 to 2025 MHz bands, which could be used for terrestrial service, direct to device service or both.
Thursday’s vote does not hand any spectrum to SpaceX. It opens a public comment period, and final rules will come later. Under the draft, comments would be due 60 days after the notice is published in the Federal Register. The FCC had not released the adopted text at the time of writing, so it is not yet clear whether any bands were changed before the vote.
That question is where the fight now moves. AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile, through industry group CTIA, asked the FCC to drop the 2.5 GHz and 3.45 GHz bands, which make up 290 MHz of the 482 MHz on the table, as Teslarati reported ahead of the vote. T-Mobile argued satellite interference could wipe out up to 96% of a cell site’s uplink coverage area. SpaceX asked the commission to go the other way and add the 902 to 928 MHz band.
The rule change that matters most to SpaceX may be a structural one. Today, a satellite operator must lease spectrum from every carrier holding co-channel licenses across an entire region such as the contiguous United States. The proposal would replace that with a certification that the operator has coexistence agreements covering only the areas it plans to serve, or that it holds the terrestrial licenses itself.
SpaceX has spent this year building that second path. It bought EchoStar’s AWS-4 and H-block licenses in a deal worth roughly $17 billion, and earlier this month agreed to acquire Grain Management’s nationwide 800 MHz portfolio, which the company said would pave the way for Starlink to become a major US mobile carrier. The FCC approved SpaceX’s purchase of three unused AWS-3 licenses from Tristar on October 21, and cleared its plan for 15,000 next generation direct to cell satellites on October 6.
The regulator has not always sided with SpaceX. In April, the FCC dismissed a SpaceX petition seeking access to Mobile Satellite Service spectrum held by incumbents, and it rejected 2.5 GHz for satellite coverage when it first adopted the framework in 2024.
The carriers are also building their own defenses. In May, the three companies agreed in principle to form a joint venture pooling spectrum for satellite service, and T-Mobile remains SpaceX’s US launch partner for Starlink Mobile even as it leads the push to keep satellites out of 2.5 GHz. SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell has said service on SpaceX’s own airwaves is targeted for early 2028.
Elon Musk
Tesla’s Roadster appearance at SpaceX has merger watchers talking
Tesla’s next generation Roadster was spotted at SpaceX’s Hawthorne headquarters, two weeks after its unveiling.
Tesla’s next generation Roadster turned up at SpaceX’s headquarters in Hawthorne, California on Wednesday, less than two weeks after the car flew off a ramp at its unveiling in Texas.
Photos shared on X by SpaceX Engineer (@DeannaRiceSPCX) show the new Roadster parked outdoors beside the famed Falcon 9 that stands outside company headquarters at the corner of Crenshaw Boulevard and Jack Northrop Avenue. Rocket B1019 was the first orbital-class booster ever to land after a launch on December 21, 2015 after it sent 11 Orbcomm satellites to orbit and then flew back to Landing Zone 1 at Cape Canaveral, which would be the first landing in what became SpaceX’s reusable rocket program. SpaceX chose not to fly it again. After a test fire in Florida, the booster was shipped to Hawthorne and raised upright as a permanent monument in August 2016, as Teslarati reported at the time. Putting the Roadster, which flies on SpaceX cold gas thrusters, next to the rocket that started SpaceX’s landings is symbolic in itself.
Small car, big rocket ambitions 🚀🚗 #roadster #falcon9 #spacex #tesla https://t.co/H32xUSXoCl
— Deanna Rice (@DeannaRiceSPCX) October 29, 2026
The Thrust and Rocket versions of the Roadster use cold gas thrusters fed by composite overwrapped pressure vessels, the same type of tank SpaceX flies on Falcon 9, and Elon Musk described the car as the work of Tesla and SpaceX engineers working together. Tesla lists 0 to 60 mph in under 0.9 seconds for Thrust and under 0.59 seconds for Rocket, while the base Performance model relies on a fan and ground sealing system for grip, as Teslarati detailed in its breakdown of the three Roadster configurations.
Tesla has kept the car in the spotlight since the October 15 event near Waco. Last week, the company posted a video of the Roadster’s fighter jet inspired cockpit, including a Track Mode screen with a “Thruster · 5,500 PSI” readout, which we covered in our look at the Roadster’s center display. Musk also said owners will be able to ask the car to perform the stunts autonomously, and promised a looping track at Tesla’s Texas headquarters.
The visit comes as special committees at Tesla and SpaceX weigh a possible merger, a step Musk confirmed on SpaceX’s third quarter earnings call. The Roadster, built on SpaceX hardware, has become one of the clearest examples of the two companies already building products together.
Musk said at the unveiling that Roadster production will begin in 2028. Reservations are open with a $50,000 payment, Thrust is listed as a limited release and Rocket is invite only. Tesla says the car is not approved for public road use.
News
Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile are trying to shut Starlink out before FCC vote
AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile want 290 MHz cut from an FCC satellite plan before Thursday.
AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile are asking the Federal Communications Commission to pull nearly 300 MHz of spectrum out of a proposal that would let satellite companies like SpaceX offer cell service directly to ordinary phones. The request lands one day before the agency votes on it.
The FCC will vote Thursday, October 29, on a notice of proposed rulemaking that would make an additional 482 MHz available for direct to device service, expanding the number of eligible bands from five to 13, according to the FCC fact sheet. It would also scrap the rule requiring a satellite operator to lease spectrum from carriers, replacing it with a certification that the operator has coexistence agreements in place or holds the terrestrial license itself.
That second path matters for SpaceX. As Teslarati reported earlier this month, SpaceX agreed to buy Grain Management’s nationwide 800 MHz portfolio to turn Starlink Mobile into a full US carrier, adding to the spectrum it already bought from EchoStar.
The carriers want two bands removed, 2.5 GHz and 3.45 GHz, which make up 290 MHz of the 482 MHz on the table. Through industry group CTIA, they argued that about 300 million users depend on those bands and that satellite operations in them are not technically feasible. T-Mobile, which calls 2.5 GHz the foundation of its Ultra Capacity 5G network, said in its own filing that satellite interference could wipe out up to 96% of a cell site’s uplink coverage area and cut uplink speeds by 88% to 99%.
Executives from all three carriers met with FCC staff on October 20, and T-Mobile CEO Srini Gopalan met separately with FCC Chairman Brendan Carr. T-Mobile’s role stands out because it is still SpaceX’s US launch partner for Starlink Mobile. The three carriers have also teamed up on their own satellite joint venture to pool spectrum, a move widely seen as a response to Starlink.
SpaceX is asking for the opposite. In an October 23 filing after meetings with FCC staff and commissioners’ offices, the company asked regulators to add the 902 to 928 MHz band to the proposal. “Doing so now saves time later,” SpaceX wrote. The company also asked the FCC to modernize interference rules and align satellite deployment requirements with those for terrestrial cell networks, saying the goal is to let satellite and ground networks work together so Americans stay connected wherever they are.
The carriers have not been shy about how they view SpaceX as a competitor. On Verizon’s third quarter earnings call Monday, its chief executive said Starlink Mobile “just can’t compete with a terrestrial network” and estimated SpaceX would need four to six years and $300 billion to $500 billion to build a full US carrier network.
Thursday’s vote will not settle which bands survive. Adopting the notice opens a public comment period, with final rules to come later in the proceeding. The FCC already considered and rejected 2.5 GHz for satellite coverage once, in 2024. SpaceX also is not the only satellite player watching: the FCC approved Amazon’s $11.6 billion acquisition of Globalstar on October 27, giving its planned direct to device fleet its own mobile satellite spectrum.
FCC green lights SpaceX’s move to a showdown with Verizon and AT&T
Tesla’s Roadster appearance at SpaceX has merger watchers talking
